2) You gave us a link to traverajm "how to set your rac. like an ATP pro"

In step 6 is a formula where to find the balance point: R=44,57/sqrt(M)

I have one rac. Prince EXO3 Rebel 95 where this formula works together with lead at 7" from butt perfectly. By the way I have 12g at 52, 10g at 7" that brings the rac. to an overall weight of 379g (13.37), 310mm bal. point(10.4HL)
and a SW of 356. This must be an excellent depoarized setup. So far so good!

With most of other rac. you can´t use this formula exactly, because bringing the SW around 355, reconmend counterbalance lead, directly to the butt cap and this is not the idea of a depolarized setup!

My question now:
What is more important?
) bringing the rac. in the near of SW 355, counterbalance at 7", and have a bal. point of about 320mm (7pts HL) or
) following the formula but then you will acieve only SW in the 340 range or less?

Yes, excellent info from xFull...So if I understand this correctly, if I were to try to make one of the newer lighter Head Radicals feel like one of the older classic ones heftwise, I would want to put lead tape at 3&9 and top of the handle? I remember reading here how someone was asking what newer racquets would make a good replacement for an older Head Radical and someone else recommended the Liquidmetal Radical, but to add lead tape to it...though they never explained where on the racquet and how much.

So putting lead 7" from the end is only for players with a 1HBH? Why would moving it up maybe 1" make it that much different? Also, why would that RAISE the SW since the weight is closer to the center? Would I be better off putting the weight just above the buttcap and also at 3/9? What do you recommend?

Also, wouldn't the ultimate in depolarising a racquet be to just add all the weight at the throat?

Theoretically yes, but at the same time you can also say the absolute ultimate is to put it all in the buttcap. Like I said, weight at 3&9 is the best way to get extra power and plow through. From there, you add counterbalance. If all the weight is added to the throat, you aren't maximizing power. The goal is to get the mass you want while reaching the swingweight you want at the same time, but at the same time, you want real results for doing this, otherwise why do it right? That's why you add lead to the head and stop before you reach your swingweight goal, then counterbalance since that will add swingweight as well (though not nearly as much).

And swingweight increases anytime you add lead anywhere on the racket. The farther up it is though, the higher the swingweight increase. If you want to experiment, put 20 grams in the buttcap, and swing it. Then take out that 20 grams, and put 20 grams at 12 and swing it. You'll notice the weight at 12 significantly increases the amount of weight you feel when you swing the racket.

And 7" above the buttcap can be used by anyone. I personally find anything higher up makes it more difficult on the serve and forehand, but some people can easily handle it, and for them I either suggest more lead at 7" above the buttcap, or stick with the lead higher up at the same amount. Really though, if you play a two handed backhand it shouldn't be that much of a problem. The weight is still closer to the contact point than the buttcap, which will give you more power than putting the weight in the buttcap. And one inch will be noticeable, but probably not huge. 3 or 4 will be pretty big though, depending on how much you put there. I used 10+ grams, so every inch of difference is quite significant to the resulting feel and swingweight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ace0001a

Ok in after skimming through the posts so far, I'm starting to think information overload...granted I think I just need to read up more on racquet customizing techniques. So specific to myself, I have a collection of Head Radicals and obviously the post 1998 ones have all gradually become lighter. So if I wanted to make one of the newer ones feel like the older classic ones in heft and swing weight, where would be the best places to put lead tape and how much of it?

It depends. Has the balance changed at all? How much weight has it lost? How has the performance been affected?

If you could measure the mass, balance, and swingweight of both rackets as well as describe as accurately as possible the difference you notice in power, spin generation, plow through, stability, and so on. I think mass, balance, and performance should suffice. Swingweight IS important, but it's not as straightforward to calculate as the rest unless you have a machine that measures it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gerli

@XFull

1) Thanks for that helpful thread!

2) You gave us a link to traverajm "how to set your rac. like an ATP pro"

In step 6 is a formula where to find the balance point: R=44,57/sqrt(M)

I have one rac. Prince EXO3 Rebel 95 where this formula works together with lead at 7" from butt perfectly. By the way I have 12g at 52, 10g at 7" that brings the rac. to an overall weight of 379g (13.37), 310mm bal. point(10.4HL)
and a SW of 356. This must be an excellent depoarized setup. So far so good!

With most of other rac. you can´t use this formula exactly, because bringing the SW around 355, reconmend counterbalance lead, directly to the butt cap and this is not the idea of a depolarized setup!

My question now:
What is more important?
) bringing the rac. in the near of SW 355, counterbalance at 7", and have a bal. point of about 320mm (7pts HL) or
) following the formula but then you will acieve only SW in the 340 range or less?

Could you clarify on the section I bolded please? Are you talking 52 centimeters (about 25-26 inches) up from the buttcap? lol

I've heard about problems with that equation as well, where the racket is already depolarized (meaning the racket company made a good racket with a good setup in the weight distribution). The thing when you try to depolarize a racket using this procedure is that since the polar moment of inertia is already low, to lower it the weight has to be placed lower. Sadly, this results in less power although the general goal is achieved. In such a scenario, I say just build up on where it already is instead of trying to lower it. This is why 7" above the buttcap works so well for most people. It's a place where heavy amounts of added weight is still very manageable while still high up enough to get a little more power on the ball.

I say if you know what your final swingweight and mass you want to have, then go for that, because there's pretty much only one way to get there.

If you follow the guidelines he posted, there are troubleshooting steps at the end as well as a note to not fear tweaking it to whatever you feel works the best in your hands. I personally start off with weight in the head and test out how it feels. If it feels good, then I'll counterbalance it (since it doesn't increase swingweight by that much). Once I'm done counterbalancing it, I modify how high/low and how much I use through trial and error. Nothing matters more than how the racket feels in your hand when on the court. Generally that produces the best results. Of course, when I polarize a racket, I counterbalance before any trial because it just doesn't feel right without at least a little in the buttcap for me.

If you have a general goal in mind, follow that. Then look to fix whatever you did wrong there and try again. Nothing is 100% on the first try. If it is, then you had a pro doing the job for you, and he read your mind and knows you and your game far better than maybe even God. (Or you gave him an excellent description of what you wanted and he did that for you and you were more than satisfied though the truth is that it's still maybe 80% of what it could be.) If you're going without a goal though, you'll be adding lead slowly but in the end you'll find your exact specs for sure. But I say shoot for something, and see if it's close to what you're looking for, then walk from there. More often than not you should be pleasantly surprised (or at least by the second shot you should).

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackB1

So what is someone with a 2HBH to do? If the ideal spot on the handle is 7" from the end. That will put it right under your top hand.

^^^"And 7" above the buttcap can be used by anyone. I personally find anything higher up makes it more difficult on the serve and forehand, but some people can easily handle it, and for them I either suggest more lead at 7" above the buttcap, or stick with the lead higher up at the same amount. Really though, if you play a two handed backhand it shouldn't be that much of a problem. The weight is still closer to the contact point than the buttcap, which will give you more power than putting the weight in the buttcap. And one inch will be noticeable, but probably not huge. 3 or 4 will be pretty big though, depending on how much you put there. I used 10+ grams, so every inch of difference is quite significant to the resulting feel and swingweight."

Quote:

Originally Posted by ace0001a

Yes, excellent info from xFull...So if I understand this correctly, if I were to try to make one of the newer lighter Head Radicals feel like one of the older classic ones heftwise, I would want to put lead tape at 3&9 and top of the handle? I remember reading here how someone was asking what newer racquets would make a good replacement for an older Head Radical and someone else recommended the Liquidmetal Radical, but to add lead tape to it...though they never explained where on the racquet and how much.

^^^Like I said, need a bit more information as I don't possess these rackets and have no idea what their specs are as well as how they feel and perform on the court. Otherwise I'd spend a free day or two experimenting on them for you and telling you what I found to work for me. Actually... Might take a week unless I do my customizations on the court.

I added power potential, step change in power potential, total change in power potential, and plowthrough index.

The starting spec input boxes will display starting power and plowthrough after you add your first tape locations.

The power is for the center of the racquet and the plowthrough for the center (about 21 inches from the butt end) and for a groundstroke of incoming ball speed of 30 mph and racquet tip speed of 65 mph.

BE SURE TO CHECK ALL THE UNITS INPUT RADIO BUTTONS TO MATCH YOUR INPUT NUMBERS OR YOU WILL GET CRAZY RESULTS.

OK, so I took my stock Yonex RDiS 300 and did the "depolarized" thing.....

Replaced the grip with a Gamma Tech Gel grip (which adds 10g), added 8g's to 3/9 and added 6 grams to 7" above butt end and now its got a 345g's static weight and is 7 pts HL. I will measure the SW tommorow, but I would guess it to be about 335.

Feels great dry swinging. Can't wait to try it on the court!

__________________
to see what I'm up to lately:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=499860

OK, so I took my stock Yonex RDiS 300 and did the "depolarized" thing.....

Replaced the grip with a Gamma Tech Gel grip (which adds 10g), added 8g's to 3/9 and added 6 grams to 7" above butt end and now its got a 345g's static weight and is 7 pts HL. I will measure the SW tommorow, but I would guess it to be about 335.

Feels great dry swinging. Can't wait to try it on the court!

I plugged your numbers into the customization worksheet (http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/lear...ionReverse.php) using our measurements for our test RDIS 300. The screenshot below shows the results. That configuration increased power by 4.34% and increased plowthrough in the center of the racquet by 10.8%.

Remember, power potential is the percent of impact speed (ball speed plus racquet speed) returned by the racquet. Plowthrough Index is the percent of racquet speed at the impact location (center of racquet) that is retained by the racquet after impact (i.e., "plowthrough"). (If you aren't familiar with all the power tools—power potential, shot speed, sweet spot zones, shot distance, hittingweight, plowthrough, racquet head speed—we have a video tutorial that gives an overview of all these by going to http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/cgi-...mparepower.cgi and clicking "video tutorial" in the lower left corner of the page.

just a question.......wouldn't getting frame that has the exact weight/balance you like be preferable to leading one up to reach that same point? Or is it sometimes better to have some of the weight concentrated in the areas that you want? In other words, if I prefer a 340 gram racquet....should I get one thats already 340 or get one that's 330 and add 10 g's to 3/9 and the handle?

__________________
to see what I'm up to lately:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=499860

I'd stick to one setup, then once completed with that setup, add lead as necessary to fix any problems not yet already solved. So I'd depolarize it, then add lead at 12 if necessary.

I've polarized a racket heavily, then added a little lead at 3&9 to increase torsional stability. It worked perfectly.

A depolarized setup with give you extra spin anyways if you have enough lead at 3&9. You probably won't notice it until you hit about 6 or 8 grams total. The idea is to get the racket up to your ideal swingweight range. If you've added all the mass you needed but can still add weight, either keep adding to the same places, or place it at 12 until it feels perfect (since that adds the most swingweight with the least increase in mass).

And yes, lead at 10&2 will raise the "sweet spot" a little, as does placing lead at 12, but at least contact is still in line with where the lead is placed, so it isn't as noticeable. That's why I generally like sticking to lead at 3&9 or across the top of the hoop.

And if you want to keep maneuverability, I say stay away from lead at 12 as much as possible. You can still put it there, but refrain from using excess lead there, since as I said before, it will result in the racket being more difficult to precisely control, which is the key to hitting your best shots (and trick shots) under conditions where you shouldn't be able to. Federer's racket head control is better than anyone else's I've ever seen, and we know what he can do with the ball, even on the full stretch.

I thought combining weight at 12 and 3&9 would not work well? I tried your depolarized setup recommendation and I do admit that your correct. But I still disagree that my setup has a negative effect/impact to my game. After tennis warehouse added the power potential and plow through index to their tool, it showed that I'm missing a significant power potential with my setup compared to polarized and depolarized setups. The only downside of your recommendation is it's less maneuverable even though it's depolarized, but the stability and power is better. It'll be perfect if it allows me to use my wrist to generate spin. Any additional recommendations?

just a question.......wouldn't getting frame that has the exact weight/balance you like be preferable to leading one up to reach that same point? Or is it sometimes better to have some of the weight concentrated in the areas that you want? In other words, if I prefer a 340 gram racquet....should I get one thats already 340 or get one that's 330 and add 10 g's to 3/9 and the handle?

Well here's the thing. Back when I used stock K90s (even now it's not too much different from a stock K90), the n90 also had the exact weight and balance I liked. I hit with it, and I hated it. I could totally play with it, but the weight distribution was horrible.

If you can find one, take a stock racket that plays exactly how you like it to. If you can't, then find something a little lower than what you're looking for, and add lead to make it better.

I was actually once considering trading my US K90s for the Asian versions, because I'd have more room to customize and could create a heavily polarized K90 and end up with the exact weight and balance I wanted. Decided against it though, because the K90 played well enough for me, and I was afraid that if I did it, it'd be the exact same thing as the US version, hence wasting my time and money to lead it up.

This is why we demo rackets. It's how we look for what works for us. Though you can almost always improve it with a little lead, especially as your game improves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jzn10nis

I thought combining weight at 12 and 3&9 would not work well? I tried your depolarized setup recommendation and I do admit that your correct. But I still disagree that my setup has a negative effect/impact to my game. After tennis warehouse added the power potential and plow through index to their tool, it showed that I'm missing a significant power potential with my setup compared to polarized and depolarized setups. The only downside of your recommendation is it's less maneuverable even though it's depolarized, but the stability and power is better. It'll be perfect if it allows me to use my wrist to generate spin. Any additional recommendations?

Sometimes it's necessary, but avoid doing it 50/50. If anything I'd do it no more than 75/25. I prefer leaning more one way that I need in my game, and after that I add lead to whatever feels like would fix any final bugs. And doing both won't have a direct negative impact to your game, but it will limit what you can do with your racket. Generally efficiency is the goal here.

If you want more spin, there are 2 things you can do:
-move some of the throat weight to the head, and move the rest a little lower
-take off some weight

The higher and the heavier the counterbalance weight is, the less spin you get overall. This is why the counterbalance weight for polarized rackets is all the way down into the buttcap. Also, the more weight to the head, and higher up, the more spin you'll get. Lowering the weight will make getting the racket around and generating heavy spin much easier, but you get less power (which can be fixed with lower tensions anyway). So it really depends on what you need more - maneuverability or spin? Maneuverability will add some spin, but YOU will have to be the major contributor to produce it.

Also, at the net, maneuverability isn't a huge issue. All you need to do with a heavy depolarized racket is to keep the racket in front and block the ball into the open court (sometimes putting a bit of punch on slower balls). A depolarized racket is so stable and has so much power and control that you get a lot for a little at the net. It's like them hitting the ball at a wall. Your main concern should be on getting the racket head up and the strings on the ball with contact out in front.

Sometimes it's necessary, but avoid doing it 50/50. If anything I'd do it no more than 75/25. I prefer leaning more one way that I need in my game, and after that I add lead to whatever feels like would fix any final bugs. And doing both won't have a direct negative impact to your game, but it will limit what you can do with your racket. Generally efficiency is the goal here.

If you want more spin, there are 2 things you can do:
-move some of the throat weight to the head, and move the rest a little lower
-take off some weight

The higher and the heavier the counterbalance weight is, the less spin you get overall. This is why the counterbalance weight for polarized rackets is all the way down into the buttcap. Also, the more weight to the head, and higher up, the more spin you'll get. Lowering the weight will make getting the racket around and generating heavy spin much easier, but you get less power (which can be fixed with lower tensions anyway). So it really depends on what you need more - maneuverability or spin? Maneuverability will add some spin, but YOU will have to be the major contributor to produce it.

Also, at the net, maneuverability isn't a huge issue. All you need to do with a heavy depolarized racket is to keep the racket in front and block the ball into the open court (sometimes putting a bit of punch on slower balls). A depolarized racket is so stable and has so much power and control that you get a lot for a little at the net. It's like them hitting the ball at a wall. Your main concern should be on getting the racket head up and the strings on the ball with contact out in front.

In the case of kpt I don't think a polarized setup is the best option. When I polarized (no added weight at 3&9) the racket, it felt more unstable but you do get more spin which I really don't need because I can provide my own spin. With a depolarized setup, you get stability and a little power w/o sacrificing maneuverability even though you're adding more mass. So I was thinking 14g at 3&9 and 2g at buttcap. This gives me my preferred swingweight and balance and it's more stable than my previous setup. There's a minimal increase in power potential and plow index. It also brings the racket's weight to 12 oz which makes it more stable. What do u think?

In the case of kpt I don't think a polarized setup is the best option. When I polarized (no added weight at 3&9) the racket, it felt more unstable but you do get more spin which I really don't need because I can provide my own spin. With a depolarized setup, you get stability and a little power w/o sacrificing maneuverability even though you're adding more mass. So I was thinking 14g at 3&9 and 2g at buttcap. This gives me my preferred swingweight and balance and it's more stable than my previous setup. There's a minimal increase in power potential and plow index. It also brings the racket's weight to 12 oz which makes it more stable. What do u think?

That's more or less exactly what I reccomended. Though I don't know about starting with 14 grams. That's quite a bit of weight. Though, since the static weight will end up being 12 ounces, there might not have been much weight up there to begin with, so it's probably not the same as a K90 with roughly the same weight added to the same place. Though I could still easily handle that and played the best running forehands of my life.

And I'd prefer the counterbalance a bit farther up, but it's your call. You might like it better there.

That's more or less exactly what I reccomended. Though I don't know about starting with 14 grams. That's quite a bit of weight. Though, since the static weight will end up being 12 ounces, there might not have been much weight up there to begin with, so it's probably not the same as a K90 with roughly the same weight added to the same place. Though I could still easily handle that and played the best running forehands of my life.

And I'd prefer the counterbalance a bit farther up, but it's your call. You might like it better there.

Why do u prefer the counterbalance to be farther up? Overall, it's still depolarized even if I add 2g at buttcap.

I plugged your numbers into the customization worksheet (http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/lear...ionReverse.php) using our measurements for our test RDIS 300. The screenshot below shows the results. That configuration increased power by 4.34% and increased plowthrough in the center of the racquet by 10.8%.

Remember, power potential is the percent of impact speed (ball speed plus racquet speed) returned by the racquet. Plowthrough Index is the percent of racquet speed at the impact location (center of racquet) that is retained by the racquet after impact (i.e., "plowthrough"). (If you aren't familiar with all the power tools—power potential, shot speed, sweet spot zones, shot distance, hittingweight, plowthrough, racquet head speed—we have a video tutorial that gives an overview of all these by going to http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/cgi-...mparepower.cgi and clicking "video tutorial" in the lower left corner of the page.

This is a wonderful thread and extremely informative. Moving the lead from 1.2" to 7" under the grip is a great idea--especailly if it adds more stability and less vibration on my left wrist on the 2hb! For some reason I can never get the TW Customization worksheet to work for me and it always says "unable to create request"--not sure what I am doing wrong as all the fields are filled in??

I am basically looking to add some more stability to this stick. I have been demoing a bunch of sticks lately and none really have blown me away so I figured I would continue to tinker with my current sticks and go from there-

After reading this thread and posts I have configured 2 of my prince tour diablo mp as follows.

(Each racquet has a Pro Supex overgrip (.2oz) and a Sampras O dampner at .1oz making it strung, OG, dampner static weight of 11.6oz per the digital postal scale I have)

#1: I added 6.75g at 22" (closer to 9/3) and also 8g 7" from bottom of grip.
New static is 12.1oz
Balance 12.55in
SW???

#2: I added 3g to 12 and also have 5g at 3/9.
New static is 11.88oz
Balance 12.7in
SW??

I would love to know what the new SW measurements are on these setups--I promise I have tried numerous times to use the worksheet but can not seem to get it to ever work for me--any tips or assistance is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance for your responses.

Why do u prefer the counterbalance to be farther up? Overall, it's still depolarized even if I add 2g at buttcap.

I like the power that comes with lead a bit farther up the handle. Lead in the buttcap is as minimal to adding power as possible, if it even does add any (it might actually reduce some playing characteristics). But with 2 grams, it makes very little difference either way. 2 grams you won't notice a big difference is swingweight even if you put it under the bumper guard. I've put 2.5 grams under the bumper guard on my rackets, and though I can notice the difference, it's not THAT huge. It's not like you're adding 10-20 grams.

Depends on the setup I want though. If I want more spin, the counterbalance is moved lower. If I want more power and stability, I move it farther up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kcraig

This is a wonderful thread and extremely informative. Moving the lead from 1.2" to 7" under the grip is a great idea--especailly if it adds more stability and less vibration on my left wrist on the 2hb! For some reason I can never get the TW Customization worksheet to work for me and it always says "unable to create request"--not sure what I am doing wrong as all the fields are filled in??

I am basically looking to add some more stability to this stick. I have been demoing a bunch of sticks lately and none really have blown me away so I figured I would continue to tinker with my current sticks and go from there-

After reading this thread and posts I have configured 2 of my prince tour diablo mp as follows.

(Each racquet has a Pro Supex overgrip (.2oz) and a Sampras O dampner at .1oz making it strung, OG, dampner static weight of 11.6oz per the digital postal scale I have)

#1: I added 8g to 10/2 (close to 9/3) and also 7g 7" from bottom of grip.
New static is 12.1oz
Balance 12.55in
SW???

#2: I added 3g to 12 and also have 5g at 3/9.
New static is 11.88oz
Balance 12.7in
SW??

I would love to know what the new SW measurements are on these setups--I promise I have tried numerous times to use the worksheet but can not seem to get it to ever work for me--any tips or assistance is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance for your responses.

Check the units. Anytime people have problems, it's because they use the wrong units. Also, make sure you're following the directions correctly.

Based off my approximate guess of the distance of 10&2 for your racket, your final swingweight that I found using their calculator for racket #1 is 338.25.

And off my estimate of the distance to 3&9, the final swingweight of racket #2 is 338.15.

Pretty close there. Anyways, I'm too lazy to get my racket and measure the distance, but even so, it'll be a little difference from your racket anyways because of the head size and length difference.

I like the power that comes with lead a bit farther up the handle. Lead in the buttcap is as minimal to adding power as possible, if it even does add any (it might actually reduce some playing characteristics). But with 2 grams, it makes very little difference either way. 2 grams you won't notice a big difference is swingweight even if you put it under the bumper guard. I've put 2.5 grams under the bumper guard on my rackets, and though I can notice the difference, it's not THAT huge. It's not like you're adding 10-20 grams.

Depends on the setup I want though. If I want more spin, the counterbalance is moved lower. If I want more power and stability, I move it farther up.

Check the units. Anytime people have problems, it's because they use the wrong units. Also, make sure you're following the directions correctly.

Based off my approximate guess of the distance of 10&2 for your racket, your final swingweight that I found using their calculator for racket #1 is 338.25.

And off my estimate of the distance to 3&9, the final swingweight of racket #2 is 338.15.

Pretty close there. Anyways, I'm too lazy to get my racket and measure the distance, but even so, it'll be a little difference from your racket anyways because of the head size and length difference.

Thanks so much for the information. You have a ton of knowledge and I love your informative/detailed posts!! You def do deserve the name "DR LEAD" I want the SW closer to 330 so I removed 1g from 9.5/2.5 location (which is right at 22" on a 27.25" stick) and added the 1g to 7" location. So now it is roughly 6.7g at 22" and 8g at 7"--342.75g total static.

I Am playing later today and am interested to check out the setups. Thanks and I will keep playing with the customization worksheet some more

It adds stability. If you think of the vibration or shock from the ball on thie strings resonating down the racket then weight at the top of the handle should reduce the shock and vibration of the frame before meeting the hand.

Im sure i couldve explained that better ha!

Tried my new setups today and can certainly attest to the better stability and less vibration with the lead at 7" spot. I now have 7g at 7". I played today with 6.75g at 22" mark and stick felt a little sluggish, but had much better stability and my 2hb felt much more solid than before with no lead. Serves were OK, but not great. Got home and decided to reduce the weight from 6.75g down to 5.5g and now at 20" (3/9) in order to get some more of the HL balance back. Figured the SW using some calculators right about 325.

Does adding the weight at 7" have just a minimal effect on SW--mainly anything above 3/9 is where the bigger jumps in SW come into play, with 12 obviously having the biggest boost with less weight being added?